Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 94-02; Pacific Pointe; Tentative Map (CT) (9)Mary Oshima 352 Olive Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 January 18, 1995 CITY OF CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 RE Agenda Item #1 CT 94-02/PUD 94-01 -PACIFIC POINTE [Dear Planning Commissioners: Below is a copy of the remarks my son will be making at this evening's meeting.] Good evening. My name is Glenn Oshima. I live at 352 Olive, the house west of the railroad tracks, and I am speaking on behalf of my mother, Mary Oshima, who owns both 352 and 315 Olive, where my brother lives. Our family has lived on Olive for more than thirty years and has no plans to leave the area or develop the land. About twenty years ago, my mother approached Mrs. Higman, the late mother of the current owners, about buying a portion of her land next to our house. She declined to sell but assured us we had no cause for concern, as it was her intention to build a home on her property for her own retirement years. Unfortunately, her plan never came to fruition. I am here this evening to ask your help in assuring that the Higman property, called Pacific Pointe, will now be developed in the most beneficial way for everyone concerned-including not only our family and our neighbors and the city, but also the owners and developers themselves. We believe this could best be accomplished by allowing the owners to subdivide their property into four separate single family lots, even though the lots would be slightly below the current city requirements for minimum lot size. As you can see by the parcel map--and as the 1986 and 1990 Beach Area studies reported-subdivision into smaller lot sizes was common in the beach area before the current standards were established and, in fact, is praised in both those studies as contributing to the charm and character of the Special Treatment Area. The 1990 report recommends preserving the neighborhood character with its predominance of smaller scale lots and buildings, and says of Date and Olive specifically, "the scale of buildings and the maturity of landscaping make these streets pleasant little pockets." Straightforward subdivision into four separate lots-instead of the proposed Planned Unit Development of six houses with a homeowners association, dues, and CC & R'swould benefit the owners by allowing them to build a better quality product with higher market value and greater return of profits and pride. The benefits to residents of building four, upscale single family homes-instead of six crowded PUD's- are many and long-lasting. It would reduce the impact on the neighborhood of added houses, residents, and cars; would be more consistent with the configuration of the existing lots; and would create a greater likelihood of resident homeownership, which decreases the chance of more roommates or roomers than the parking codes and traffic estimates anticipate. Four units would also give the developer greater design flexibility. This point is of particular importance to my family because of the heavy noise impact to our house of the project presently proposed-despite the environmental report's claim there will be no significant noise impact. At the present time, noise from passing trains is minimized because our house has its back to the tracks. Most of the windows in our one-story house face west, so if the present project is approved, noise levels in our house will be increased intolerably by the "reflected sound" effect of the long, two-story structure in front of our windows. I have been told that reflected noise is amplified, and is actually many times louder than the source noise itself-the higher and closer the "backboard" the greater the amplification. Greater design flexibility would allow the developer to mitigate the noise impact by putting the lowest part of the building on our side of the lot as far from our house as feasible. We believe every effort should be made to minimize the noise impact- especially since the Special Treatment Area and Beach Area Overlay Zone make that one of the goals for this neighborhood. I quote: "The location of proposed buildings and structures shall not impose objectionable noise levels on adjoining properties." Finally I would like to question the necessity of putting in sidewalks on Olive Avenue. Other streets in the city, such as Highland, have been allowed to keep a rural flavor by saying no to sidewalks. In fact, both of the studies for the Beach Area Special Treatment zone recommend leaving some streets without sidewalks. The 1990 study says, "Provision of sidewalks throughout the Special Treatment Area is not essential from the standpoint of pedestrian volume and would in some cases detract from the character of the neighborhood." This is especially true for Olive with its mature landscaping all along the street. Maybe we need curbs at some point, but do we really need sidewalks? I leave you with these four questions. (1)Since it is in the best interests of the developers, the residents, and the beach neighborhood generally, why isn't the city willing to let the owners subdivide? (2) If the city approves six smaller units, instead of four, how will the city control the number of cars these units generate? What if residents of the six units have more than the allotted two apiece? (3)lf design and location of the building next to our house will mitigate objectionable noise impacts, can the city require the project to do that? And (4) if we don't need or want sidewalks and the Beach Area Studies recommend against them for our street, why are they being required--and who will pay for them and other recommended street improvements? Thank you for the opportunity to express my concerns.